Ehrlich v. Ruiz CA1/3

Filed 8/29/13 Ehrlich v. Ruiz CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JAKE W. EHRLICH, III., Plaintiff and Respondent,. v. A136460 HUMBERTO RUIZ, JR., (San Francisco County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CCH-12-573254)

This is an appeal from a civil harassment restraining order entered against defendant Humberto Ruiz on July 13, 2012 for the protection of plaintiff Jake W. Ehrlich. Entry of this order followed an uncontested hearing at which plaintiff testified as to the veracity of his statements describing defendant’s harassment as set forth in his request for restraining order under penalty of perjury, and defendant failed to appear or to otherwise offer opposition. We affirm.1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 27, 2007, plaintiff filed in San Francisco Superior Court a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Order seeking protection from defendant for himself and his live-in girlfriend, Erica Scott-Kurjanowicz. According to plaintiff’s request form, he and defendant were close friends from 1983 to 2003.2 However, shortly thereafter, for

1 Plaintiff declined to file a respondent’s brief. 2 The request filed by plaintiff was completed on Mandatory Judicial Form CH-100.

1

unidentified reasons, their relationship soured, with defendant beginning in 2003 a continuous course of conduct directed at plaintiff that including stalking, threatening and otherwise harming plaintiff and his girlfriend. In particular, plaintiff averred that defendant had more than once threatened to kill him, telling him, “You deserve a bullet in your head,” and leaving him a voicemail on March 26, 2012 “saying something about ‘bullet to my face.’ ” In addition to these death threats, plaintiff averred that defendant had, among other things, sent him threatening text and voicemail messages at all hours of the day and night, stolen his identity to apply for credit cards and to gain access to pornographic websites, broken a window of his home, attempted to break into his home, and spread false rumors about him. All of plaintiff’s averments were made under penalty of perjury. The day after plaintiff’s request was filed in court, a temporary restraining order was issued against defendant and a notice of hearing was filed setting a court date of April 18, 2012. This temporary restraining order was subsequently reissued and the hearing date continued several times until, finally, on July 13, 2012, the court ordered that the matter would be heard despite defendant’s absence.3 On July 13, 2012, the trial court issued a permanent Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing against defendant for plaintiff’s protection with an expiration date of July 13, 2015. Pursuant to this order, defendant was required to stay at least 50 yards away from plaintiff, his girlfriend (Ms. Scott-Kurjanowicz), his vehicle, his residence and his workplace. In addition, defendant was prohibited from harassing, attacking, striking, threatening, assaulting, hitting, following, stalking, destroying personal property, keeping under surveillance, blocking movement, contacting, telephoning, emailing, mailing, or taking any action, directly or indirectly, to obtain the address or location of plaintiff or Ms. Scott-Kurjanowicz.